Can Bulging War Chests Save Endangered Democrats in 2010?

Traditionally, a large fundraising advantage was a strong indicator that an incumbent was safe. Being able to outspend your opponent on campaign ads and staff is clearly a big advantage. Strong fundraising is also a decent, all be it imperfect, indicator of a candidate’s (and the opponent’s) level of commitment to the campaign.

An analysis earlier this year by Paul Blumenthal at the Sunlight Foundation found that, even in wave elections, incumbents who raise 70 percent of the total campaign contributions in their race almost never lost. It was also determined that, even in 1994, only one-third of incumbents that raise between 60 to 70 percent of the money in their races ended up losing.

If this pattern holds up, Democrats should be in better shape than generic ballot polling or political prognosticators indicate. There are currently nine incumbent Democrats who are ranked as “toss-up” or “likely to lose” who have raised 70 percent or more of the money in their race, and 18 Democrats who have raised between 60 and 70 percent of the total contributions in their races.

70% or greater

Ann Kirkpatrick

AZ-01

Gabrielle Giffords

AZ-08

Allen Boyd

FL-02

Alan Grayson

FL-08

Suzanne Kosmas

FL-24

Larry Kissell

NC-08

Kathy Dahlkemper

PA-03

Pat Murphy

PA-08

Chris Carney

PA-10

60%-70%

Harry Mitchell

AZ-05

Jerry McNerney

CA-11

Betsy Markey

CO-04

Sanford Bishop

GA-02

Jim Marshall

GA-08

Bill Foster

IL-14

Gary Peters

MI-09

Heath Shuler

NC-11

Ann McLane Kuster

NH-02

Dina Titus

NV-03

John Hall

NY-19

Bill Owens

NY-23

Paul Kanjorski

PA-11

John Spratt

SC-05

Lincoln Davis

TN-04

Chet Edwards

TX-17

Tom Perriello

VA-05

Steve Kagen

WI-08

Michael Oliverio

WV-01

Raising 70 percent or more of the donations in a race is huge. For example, in 1994, only a 3.3 percent of incumbents who did this lost, and in 2006, it was only 0.8 percent. If previous patterns hold, most of those nine Democrats listed above should win, even though most political observers think almost all of them will lose.

Looking just at the predictive power of fundraising totals, it would appear Democrats are in better shape than most are currently projecting. Based on their financial disclosures, many of the “most endangered” Democrats should survive, thanks to large campaign war chests.

There are, however, two reasons this year that the traditional pattern might not hold. First, the massive flood of secret corporate spending on behalf of Republican candidates could completely wipe out Democrats’ fundraising advantage. Second, the highly unusual nature of this election. Both 2006 and 2008 were big “wave” elections for Democrats, and this November is expect to be a huge wave in the opposite direction. It is possible that the 2008 Democratic wave swept some Democrats into red districts that, no matter how much money they raised, could not be held in this coming GOP counter wave.

Can Bulging War Chests Save Endangered Democrats in 2010?

Traditionally, a large fundraising advantage was a strong indicator that an incumbent was safe. Being able to outspend your opponent on campaign ads and staff is clearly a big advantage. Strong fundraising is also a decent, all be it imperfect, indicator of a candidate’s (and the opponent’s) level of commitment to the campaign.

An analysis earlier this year by Paul Blumenthal at the Sunlight Foundation found that, even in wave elections, incumbents who raise 70 percent of the total campaign contributions in their race almost never lost. It was also determined that, even in 1994, only one-third of incumbents that raise between 60 to 70 percent of the money in their races ended up losing.

If this pattern holds up, Democrats should be in better shape than generic ballot polling or political prognosticators indicate. There are currently nine incumbent Democrats who are ranked as “toss-up” or “likely to lose” who have raised 70 percent or more of the money in their race, and 18 Democrats who have raised between 60 and 70 percent of the total contributions in their races.

Jon Walker

Jonathan Walker grew up in New Jersey. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 2006. He is an expert on politics, health care and drug policy. He is also the author of After Legalization and Cobalt Slave, and a Futurist writer at http://pendinghorizon.com